Karnataka High Court directs special court to complete trial in 2016 murder case against MLA Vinay Kulkarni within two months

The High Court of Karnataka has directed the Special Court of Sessions for criminal cases against former present MPs and MLAs to make an endeavour to conclude the trial in the 2016 murder case against Congress MLA Vinay R. Kulkarni within an outer limit of two months, if not earlier.

Co-operate for trial

Also, the HC directed all parties, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and 21 accused persons, to cooperate for the conclusion of the trial expeditiously.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing petitions filed by Mr. Kulkarni, who is arraigned as Accused No. 15 in the case, and a few other accused.

The petitioners had questioned the decision of the special court, which had permitted recording of voluntary statement of Basavaraj S. Muttagi, Accused No. 1 in the case, under Section 164 of the CrPC before a magistrate when the trial was under way for considering his plea seeking pardon by becoming an approver in the case.

Setting aside the special court’s October 30 order, the High Court said that recording of a statement under Section 164 of CrPC, prior to grant of pardon, is illegal and such procedure cannot be adopted in any case, while granting pardon.

Changed circumstances

As the special court had rejected Muttagi’s first plea for pardon earlier, the High Court said that the second application seeking pardon under Section 306 of CrPC is maintainable, only on changed circumstances, as also, in the kind of circumstance that is projected in the present case as Muttagi had claimed that he is facing threat to life from various corner, including from Mr. Kulkarni and some other accused persons.  

As the CBI claimed that petitioners have repeatedly knocked on the doors of the High Court to protract the trial, the High Court found that the special court on a couple of occasions had found that the CBI too was responsible for the delay of trial as the probe agency was not examining witnesses in a systematic manner resulting in a delay in their cross-examination.